Goodwin v. Sphatt
| Decision Date | 12 June 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 2D11–4767.,2D11–4767. |
| Citation | 114 So.3d 1092 |
| Parties | John GOODWIN, Appellant, v. Marcus SPHATT, an individual, and Buygone, Inc., a domestic corporation, and all assigns, and successors in interests, d/b/a Island Tree Service, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Michael J.P. Baker of Mike Fink Trial Lawyers, P.A., Fort Myers, for Appellant.
Stuart M. Pepper, Cape Coral, for Appellees.
John Goodwin seeks review of the order dismissing his four-count complaint against Marcus Sphatt and Buygone, Inc., based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. We reverse because the allegations in the complaint do not conclusively establish that the statute of limitations had run on any of Goodwin's claims.
Goodwin's complaint alleged that Goodwin, Sphatt, and Buygone, Inc., entered into a business venture that was memorialized in a shareholders' agreement on November 7, 2005. The agreement was attached to the complaint. Sphatt managed the operation of Buygone, and Goodwin was to receive a portion of the profits, dividends, and other remuneration from the operation of Buygone once it became profitable. Over the next few years Sphatt kept telling Goodwin that Buygone was not profitable. But the complaint asserted that Buygone quickly became profitable, that Sphatt misrepresented the financial information of the business, and that Goodwin only became aware of Buygone's profitability when he was informed by the IRS that he owed taxes on income realized through the corporation. Goodwin asked Sphatt for an accounting, but Sphatt refused to provide one.
Goodwin filed the complaint against Sphatt and Buygone on January 3, 2011. The complaint asserted claims for breach of the shareholders' agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and a shareholders' derivative action. Sphatt and Buygone moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that the statute of limitations had run on all of Goodwin's claims. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. This was error.
Ordinarily, the statute of limitations is raised as an affirmative defense. Ambrose v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 736 So.2d 146, 149 (Fla. 5th DCA 1999). But the statute of limitations may be raised in a motion to dismiss when the violation is evident from the face of the complaint and its attachments. Brooke v. Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, LLP, 828 So.2d 1078, 1080 (Fla. 2d DCA 2002). A motion to dismiss should only be granted “under extraordinary circumstances where the facts in the complaint, taken as true, conclusively show that the action is barred by the statute of limitations.” Ambrose, 736 So.2d at 149.
Goodwin's claims for breach of the shareholders' agreement and the shareholders' derivative action are subject to the five-year statute of limitations for “[a] legal or equitable action on a contract, obligation, or liability founded on a written instrument.” See§ 95.11(2)(b), Fla. Stat. (2005). The statute of limitations for these causes of action begins to run at the time of the breach. Technical Packaging, Inc. v. Hanchett, 992 So.2d 309, 313 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008). Goodwin's complaint does not set forth any specific dates to establish when Sphatt allegedly breached the shareholders' agreement. Rather, it alleges multiple breaches over an unspecified period of time. Because the facts as alleged do not conclusively show that the claims are barred, the trial court erred in granting the motion to dismiss these claims.
Goodwin's claim for breach of fiduciary duty is subject to the four-year statute of limitations for intentional torts. § 95.11(3)( o); Halkey–Roberts Corp. v. Mackal, 641 So.2d 445, 447 (Fla. 2d DCA 1994). The statute of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chakra 5, Inc. v. City of Miami Beach
...whether the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations bars any portion of Appellants' claims. See, e.g., Goodwin v. Sphatt, 114 So.3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013) (recognizing that the continuing torts doctrine, as an exception to a statute of limitations defense, "presents a factu......
-
De Rothschild v. Serlin
...and begins to run "when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the defendant's misrepresentations." Goodwin v. Sphatt,114 So.3d 1092, 1095 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013); see also West Brook Isles Partner's 1, LLC v. Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co., 163 So.3d 635, 639 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. ......
-
Weatherly v. Pershing, LLC
...fraud claims are subject to a four-year statute of limitations. See FLA. STAT. § 95.11(3)(j) (1991) ; see also Goodwin v. Sphatt , 114 So.3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013). Although claims generally begin to accrue when the last element of the cause of action occurs, Florida applies ......
-
Williams v. 3rd Home Ltd.
...Doc. 1-1, ¶¶ 74-80. Under Florida law, a claim for breach of fiduciary duty is an intentional tort. See, e.g., Goodwin v. Sphatt, 114 So. 3d 1092, 1094 (Fla. 2d DCA 2013). "The elements of a claim for breach of fiduciary duty are: the existence of a fiduciary duty, and the breachof that dut......